Facts

• The petitioner is a resident of Dausa and an elected Parshad from Ward No. 55 of Nagar Parishad, Dausa.
• Respondent No. 4, Smt. Monika Soni, an Executive Officer Class-III, was appointed as Secretary, Nagar Parishad, Dausa vide order dated 15.02.2024.
• Vide order dated 17.02.2024, Respondent No. 4 was additionally given the charge of Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Dausa by the Department of Local Self Government.
• The petitioner challenged the conferment of additional charge on the ground that Respondent No. 4 did not possess the requisite qualifications under the Rajasthan Municipal Service (Administrative and Technical) Rules, 1963, as amended.
• Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 4 did not fulfill the statutory qualifications required to hold the post of Commissioner.
• It was submitted that under the Rules of 1963 and the notification dated 30.01.2018, the post of Commissioner can only be filled by promotion from Executive Officer Class-II, subject to minimum experience.
• The conferment of additional charge of Commissioner upon an Executive Officer Class-III was argued to be de hors the statutory rules.
• It was contended that administrative exigencies or impending elections cannot justify appointment of an unqualified person.
• Reliance was placed on earlier judgments of the High Court, including Shrawan Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthanand Smt. Mamta Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan.
• The petitioner also relied on judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court to establish locus standi in a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The State and the private respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding locus standi of the petitioner.
• It was contended that the petitioner was not an aggrieved party and that the petition was not maintainable.
• On merits, it was argued that the additional charge was given due to administrative exigencies, including shortage of Commissioners and impending Lok Sabha Elections.
• Reliance was placed on judgments to contend that such administrative arrangements were permissible.

Hon’ble High Court’s Observations & Decision

• The Court held that a writ of quo warranto can be maintained by a citizen to examine whether a person is legally qualified to hold a public office.
• The Court rejected the objection regarding locus standi and held that the petitioner was competent to maintain the petition.
• The Court observed that Respondent No. 4 is admittedly an Executive Officer Class-III.
• The Court noted that as per the Rules of 1963, the post of Commissioner can only be filled by promotion from Executive Officer Class-II.
• The Court held that conferment of additional charge of Commissioner upon Respondent No. 4 was contrary to the statutory rules.
• The plea of administrative exigency was rejected, and it was held that such exigency cannot override statutory qualifications.
• Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
• The order dated 17.02.2024 conferring additional charge of Commissioner upon Respondent No. 4 was quashed and set aside.
• Pending applications were disposed of.